The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewLarry Romanoff Archive
A Search for Truth and Understanding
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For much of my life I have been curious about the world, not so much wanting to know things as to understand them and, at various times I would attempt to satisfy that desire – usually by devouring every available book on the subject. I would read every book at the library that seemed useful and, since I traveled a lot at the time, I would visit every bookstore within reach in every city and buy every book that seemed to know things I didn’t know. I once had a library of many thousands of books.

As one example, I was at one time fascinated with gemstones and pearls – for no good reason that I can recall, but I followed my pattern and read and bought everything I could find. Certainly, I acquired knowledge during that process. I can easily detect flaws in a cut stone or a string of natural pearls and I am competent to challenge Tiffany on the tepid color of what they sell as emeralds. Still, in the real world I am an amateur, perhaps knowing a bit more than an average layman, but of little or no consequence to anyone in the field. Again, it wasn’t so much a search for knowledge as a quest for understanding. I wasn’t so much looking to know everything as to “understand” the world of gemstones and pearls. Nevertheless, the process served its purpose and would qualify as research.

But there is a pitfall here. When we are researching the natural world, we are mostly in a context of fact. The sciences, geography, the physical and material manifestations of nature, are largely if not often entirely factual. They don’t lie to us. There is little room for bias or opinion in what happens when we drop a bowling ball or in questions of the formation and growth of crystals or pearls. Thus, reading books written by experts or professionals can teach us all we want to know and give us all the understanding we desire.

However, things change when we enter the world of man, or at least that part affected by man, because we are no longer dealing with factual manifestations of nature but have entered a world of interpretation and opinion, perhaps as many different of these as there are men to express them. And now, the traditional method of research to acquire knowledge will fail us because we are no longer being taught but indoctrinated.

As an easy example, we can consider the book “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer, published in 1960 by Simon & Schuster in the US, the winner of awards and promoted to the ends of the earth like few books in the history of publishing. There may be few people of at least two generations who haven’t read this book, and for many it may be the only book they have ever read on the subject.

The problem is that we were not reading a book on the history of Germany and the Wars; we were instead reading an instruction manual of 1,249 pages telling us what William Shirer wanted us to think about Germany and the Wars. And that is not the same thing. Shirer’s book is biased at best, with a story line scaffolding unrelated to Germany. It isn’t quite a fairy tale because it does contain many facts, but it also twists many facts, omits many others of great consequence, weaves threads that barely exist into thick carpets, states idle opinion as fact, and interprets all of it to fit the pre-determined story line. It was Shirer who propagated the now-ridiculed idea that the Germans used Jewish fat to make soap, and he was almost entirely responsible for the delusion (obtained from Wiesenthal) that the Nazis claimed the Germans were a “Master Race”, a claim he must have known was a complete lie. In some ways, it is closer to a work of fiction than to factual history and Shirer closer to a snake-oil salesman than an author.

This is not unique to Shirer. Every history book is guilty of these accusations to some degree, and virtually all interpretations are clouded by ideology or preference or simply personal belief. They needn’t be deliberately dishonest to contain these flaws; being written by a human is often sufficient. If we consider Carroll Quigley’s tome “Tragedy and Hope”, we find the same issues. I have great respect for Quigley, and I would say that 75% of that book is accurate and valuable. But the remaining 25% is almost as bad as Shirer. It seemed to me that when directly addressing the issues of Germany and the Wars, an automatic pilot assumed control of Quigley’s mind and inserted a framework of “Germany bad” into which all facts now required insertion. Similarly, Noam Chomsky, another individual with my respect, and who has written much of great value to humanity, also has great blind spots.

I have read many books that resemble a Master’s or Ph.D. thesis in that they are simply a survey of the available literature, telling us what many others have written on that subject, but in many cases contributing little to the store of knowledge or understanding. This wouldn’t be so bad if all the disputed elements were included along with many of the so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ but this process is proscribed by the institutions. Thus, in a search for truth in history, these are the worst places to begin.

There is another complicating factor in that we humans often have a tendency to believe that if we know something, we know everything. We needn’t look very far to find a writer of one good article to suddenly believe he can write with authority on any topic. It works in reverse too, in that we too easily believe that if a person knows much on one subject, they must be an expert on everything. It is both ludicrous and painful to watch a news anchor sincerely requesting the opinion of a Steve Jobs on the Amazon rain forest – simply on the basis of the man having designed a cool mobile phone. And what does a 16 year-old Greta what’s-her-name know about anything?

What do we do now? If I am a beginner and want to learn about the history of Germany, where do I turn? Every accepted history book on the subject will have multiple serious flaws and I am in no position to know what they are or where they lie. Worse, if I read one book on any historical topic, Shirer’s Third Reich, for example, I may be colored forever by what I first read and it may prove exceedingly difficult to change my mind later in spite of discovering irrefutable evidence that contradicts my early-formed opinions and beliefs. I have no way to defend myself.

Fortunately, my interest in history was oblique rather than frontal, and I accidentally acquired much of my early education not from reading all the accepted and politically-correct textbooks, but from browsing second and third-tier websites, reading brief articles – especially those with reader comments, and similar sources. Eventually I’d seen enough of that and began doing independent research on small specific topics that interested me – such as the possibility of prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, my interest awakened from the persistent references to that prior knowledge indeed existing at the highest levels but not communicated to Pearl Harbor. None of this information appeared anywhere in respected history texts, and probably not in disrespected ones either, yet it has proven to be true.

I followed this developed pattern from that point onward, deliberately avoiding the accepted textbooks on a subject of my interest and instead pursuing other sources first. I will admit quickly that many, or even most, of those sources are at least partially if not entirely rubbish, items written by flakes, conspiracy theorists, amateurs, the uneducated, the great unwashed, the simple-minded and others similar. As well, much of it, and especially including reader comments, consists of deliberate misinformation. But not all, and in this simple fact lies a great salvation.

From perusing all these secondary and tertiary sources, I would learn which historical facts were generally accepted, and which were in dispute, and on most “facts of history” I would also encounter multiple frames of reference, hundreds of differing opinions and interpretations, and some genuine gold nuggets. Often, these nuggets would consist of little more than a brief comment in passing from an interested reader, but they would awaken me to an aspect of an historical event that I didn’t know existed.

And from all of this, it was eventually not difficult to identify the ideologues and trolls, and to sort out the rubbish from the rest. I might still not know the truth of an historical event, but I would have many facts, knowing which in dispute and which not, and I would generally know the framework of an event, one which had inadvertently been vetted by potentially thousands of people, the intelligent among them. Now, when I read Shirer’s book, it becomes immediately evident to me that he mixes opinion and fact, that important accepted facts are simply omitted from his tale, and I can see quickly that, however learned the man may appear to be, I am in fact being propagandised instead of being taught history. I am now able to defend myself.

These comments may seem strange to an average reader, but their wisdom in application is well-proven. If we look at the comments on websites such as this one, probably 95% are either off the topic or badly-flawed in some way, but we can also recognise the few intelligent and reasoned comments that are free of bias and opinion and that add not only to our knowledge but our understanding.

This latter point deserves explanation. I categorise knowledge and understanding as two very different things, similar to one seeing the trees or the forest. There are many books written on Germany or the War in the Pacific where the author clearly has a great deal of knowledge of the subject but, equally as clearly, doesn’t really understand anything about what happened or why it happened the way it did. As I wrote at the beginning, I was not so much on a search for knowledge as a quest for understanding. There are at least hundreds of thousands if not hundreds of millions of people who know more about Germany and the Wars than do I, but my overall understanding of those events might not surrender to so many of those people.

In this above context I could mention David Irving, an historian almost without equal, at least in some respects. And yet while his knowledge is admittedly extreme it is clear there are some things he didn’t understand very well. I don’t fault the man. He adhered rigidly to original documents, reporting faithfully what he discovered and documenting it beyond reproach, yet due to that same rigor he occasionally became so focused on the trees he was missing the forest.

As one example, from his documents, he concluded that about 150,000 to 200,000 people died in Dresden, but he missed many factors outside his ‘original documentation’ that should have led him to conclude the toll was many times higher. For one thing, the Americans bombed every town within traveling range of Dresden, driving refugees to that city, and bombed every alternative road and railroad that might have permitted passage in other directions. There is ample evidence that perhaps 600,000 German refugees flocked to Dresden in time for the final attack, and many reports not in Irving’s original papers that they strafed every column of refugees heading to Dresden but didn’t arrive, including ambulance convoys. They even strafed all the animals in the Dresden zoo. It is true that the final number of fatalities is in dispute, but it is arguably very much larger than Irving indicated. If he had dwelt more on the overall picture of the night-bombing and incineration-bombing, and considered all the surrounding factors, he might have come to a very different conclusion albeit one not so firmly documented as all his other pages. I would argue the man had, at least in some instances, knowledge without understanding.

It is very easy for us to find a history book on almost any topic that catches our interest, succumb to reading it and, for whatever reason, convince ourselves that we have read “the definitive work” on that subject and to then stubbornly close our minds to even the most glaring of contradictory facts, insisting to the death that we know everything about that topic when in reality much of what we “know” is either irrelevant or just plain wrong, and may omit some of the most important elements that entirely change the picture. It is not easy for any of us to maintain an open mind, especially on historical topics which evoke emotion – as most are prone to do.

I cannot end without admitting that what I have presented here is a digital image, a black and white portrait of information, while our real world is analogue – infinite shades of grey. The world of science is largely, but not entirely, factual. The world of physics, especially dealing with relativity, is sometimes overloaded with opinion and bias, as can astronomy be sometimes. And in the world of man we can identify works of minimal bias that provide trustworthy foundations for our knowledge and understanding.

Still, the generalisations hold, and for both readers and writers this requires caution. Neither can believe everything they read, but the onus is on the researcher and writer to do one’s best to retain honesty and integrity, to not classify opinion as fact, to recognise and admit theories that are in dispute and, most importantly, to either search for truth or not search at all. In my view, it is unconscionable for an author or a respected media columnist (or a famous and admired actor) to then use that platform of respect as a shill to propagandise and indoctrinate trusting readers with tales that are factually false. I could name some very big names here, and they wouldn’t like it. And for readers, the task is to avoid the temptation to look only for articles or facts that agree with our predilections and to face the possibility that everything we think may be wrong. As someone wrote, “It would be better to not know so many things than to know so many things that are wrong.”

Let’s close with one live example from the COVID-19 world:

Several authors have published articles on this platform eulogizing Sweden as the poster country for virus control, passionately praising the Swedes for their penetrating discernment and good sense in leaving the country open, and using this as irrefutable proof that quarantines and isolation are counter-productive. Simultaneously, a great many commenters offer Sweden as proof that lockdowns are detrimental to the public health.

But here are the facts:


I have rounded off all the numbers for ease of reading; the roundings are inconsequential to the result. You can see clearly from the statistics that while Sweden has twice the population of the other three Nordic Countries, it has between 3 times and 10 times the number of virus infections and between 8 times and 16 times the number of deaths. The other three countries imposed quarantines and other measures while Sweden did not. So, on what basis can Sweden be used as an ideal for anything? It cannot be. On this basis of comparison, Sweden is a disaster.

What conclusions do we draw from this? Mainly that neither the writers nor the readers are interested in the truth, but are instead focused only on selling an ideological point of view on the uselessness of quarantines, undeterred by the fact that their premises are not only false but ridiculously so. Few are unaware of the true statistics, and none apparently care. And yet this is the kind of “research” that makes its way daily into the MSM and annually into the history books. It is all indoctrination, propaganda, and salesmanship, its relationship with the truth tenuous at best and often totally non-existent – as in this case.

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 28 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English-language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. His full archive can be seen at and He can be contacted at: [email protected]

• Category: History • Tags: American Media, World War II 
Hide 42 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. BuelahMan says:

    But here are the facts

    (and no linkage for anyone to double check).


    Historical or hysterical accuracy at play?

  2. This is a great article. It’s time for people to understand that what they perceive as information is MISINFORMATION, usually intentional.

    But there are some facts of great importance that can not be disputed. First and foremost is that if the power to create money is given to PRIVATE individuals with psychopathic traits, they will eventually destroy the world.

    Secondly, that if that power to create money out of nothing is removed and all stolen property repatriated, the psychopath will be neutered to point they no longer pose a danger to the rest of us.

    Lastly, the only way to make the world a better, more equal place is to use something as money that can not be created by psychopaths on a printing press.

  3. GeeBee says:

    First of all, let me say that I enjoyed this article, and that it undoubtedly contains much good sense and indeed advice. I must, however, express my surprise that having – correctly, I believe – used David Irving’s analysis of the despicable carnage of Dresden to show how mere empirical evidence must be set against both context and peripheral factors in order to get nearer the truth, the writer invokes some bald (and I’m sure accurate) statistics in order to wag a finger at those who have upheld Sweden as a glowing example to the world in terms of their covid policy. While I am not necessarily suggesting that we should regard Sweden as such, I must point out that – as with Irving on Dresden – the writer overlooks important context, not least that Sweden is far more urbanised than its near neighbours. This, one imagines, cannot help but increase the risk of transmission. The remoter climes of Norway and Finland especially must act as a ready-made piece of ‘social distancing’ (to use this dreadful phrase).

    Now: onto Shirer! About three years ago I was commissioned to write a monograph on the subject of National Socialism by a website now sadly ‘de-platformed’. In it, I invoked Shirer’s shoddy piece of opportunism and triumphalist propaganda with what I admit was not a little relish. I did rather ‘give him the works’ (as he so richly deserves, having, as you say, been ‘promoted to the ends of the earth’ for his efforts. An example or two? Why not!

    “To read William L Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Simon & Schuster, 1960) is most instructive, although perhaps not in the way Shirer intended. The book is often cited as ‘the standard work’ on the subject; a ‘masterpiece’ in fact. And there is little surprise there, bearing in mind that Shirer utterly detested National Socialism and loathed Adolf Hitler: perfect credentials for finding favour with the publishing industry. The work is replete with ad hominem insults, prejudice, subjective observations, non-sequiturs and glib, throw-away remarks, to all of which Shirer gratuitously appends pejorative adjectives. An example at random is where he touches on Hitler’s youthful days as an artist and would-be architect, about which he offers his readers such ‘impartial and objective’ fare as:

    ‘He had always disdained manual labour’; ‘The idea of any kind of regular employment was repulsive to him’; ‘He drew or painted crude little pictures’; ‘He copied his works and could not draw from nature’; ‘They are stilted and lifeless’; ‘Hundreds of these pitiful pieces were sold by Hitler to the petty traders’; ‘This was the extent of Hitler’s “artistic” achievement, yet to the end of his life he considered himself an “artist”’; ‘The ideas he acquired in Vienna were shallow and shabby, often grotesque and preposterous and poisoned by outlandish prejudices, but they would form part of the foundations of the Third Reich which this bookish vagrant was soon to build’.

    “Hitler’s core entourage naturally come in for the same treatment. His close ‘collaborators’ were ‘murderers, pimps, homosexual perverts’ (whoops! – how times change as the great Globalist-Progressive monolith rumbles on), ‘drug addicts and just plain rowdies’; ‘a grotesque assortment of misfits’.

    Julius Streicher was ‘a depraved sadist’; Goebbels ‘a lame little fanatic’; Alfred Rosenberg a ‘ponderous, dim-witted Baltic pseudo-philosopher’, whose Myth of the Twentieth Century was a ‘ludicrous concoction of half-baked ideas’. (It is, at least, enlightening to be informed that Reich Youth leader Baldur von Schirach ‘had become an anti-Semite after reading Henry Ford’s Eternal Jew’.)

    “Who, on reading this farrago of real ‘outlandish prejudice’ uncritically, would imagine that this ‘bookish vagrant’ would soon become the architect of perhaps the most astounding economic miracle of modern times and go on to become Time Magazine’s ‘man of the year’ in 1938?
    Shirer’s work is a masterpiece alright: a masterpiece of reverse-engineered propaganda. He starts with the unalterable premise that Hitler was an appalling megalomaniac hell-bent on world-domination, and proceeds to paint all his evidence in colours appropriate to that end. We can therefore be sure that when he comes to describe Mein Kampf we are in for a real treat:

    Had the foreign statesmen of the world perused it carefully while there was still time, both Germany and the world might have been saved from catastrophe…The blueprint of the Third Reich and of the barbaric New Order which Hitler inflicted on conquered Europe, is spelled out in repellent detail.’

    “Ignoring his obligatory adjectival fulminations (as is no more than prudent when their tendency is to cleave to the same path), is Shirer being mischievous or merely naïve when he appears to suggest that no-one of political importance outside Germany had troubled themselves to read the work? He continues:

    He was full of a burning passion for German nationalism, a hatred for democracy, Marxism and Jews, and a certainty that Providence had chosen the “Aryans”, especially the Germans, to be the master race.’

    “It will surely strike any ‘red-pilled’ reader today that when he mentions Hitler’s hatred for ‘democracy, Marxism and Jews’ he is committing tautology: those three entities being essentially one and the same thing. He goes on:

    In Mein Kampf he expanded his views and applied them to the problem of not only restoring Germany to a place in the sun, but making a new kind of state, based on race, in which would be established the absolute dictatorship of the leader – himself. The book contains…an outline of the future German state, and his Weltanschauung, or view of life, would strike a normal mind of the 20th century as a grotesque hodgepodge concocted by a half-baked, uneducated neurotic.’

    “He actually goes on to remark that the above view was embraced by millions of Germans. It does not seem to have occurred to him that perhaps all those millions of Germans had a good reason to believe in their saviour. As for his fatuous remark that Mein Kampf was ‘a grotesque hodgepodge concocted by a half-baked, uneducated neurotic’, we have a Shirer masterclass in just nine words: a garish adjective qualifying an insulting and subjective analysis, two more unfounded pejorative adjectives and, as a final flourish, a totally subjective assessment of Hitler’s mental state made by – a journalist.

    “Let us take just one of those Shirer adjectives and submit it to the test of hard evidence for a change. Hitler, according to Shirer, was ‘uneducated’. Here we can do no better than to allow Leon Degrelle a few words (as many will know, he was a Belgian national who joined an SS Freikorps unit in which he rose to the rank of General, and who, unlike Rauschning, knew Hitler intimately):

    ‘His own knowledge he had acquired through selective and unremitting study, and he knew far more than thousands of diploma-decorated academics. I don’t think anyone ever read as much as he did. He normally read one book every day, always first reading the conclusion and the index in order to gauge the work’s interest for him. He had the power to extract the essence of each book and then store it in his computer-like mind. I have heard him talk about complicated scientific books with faultless precision, even at the height of the war. His intellectual curiosity was limitless. He was readily familiar with the writings of the most diverse authors, and nothing was too complex for his comprehension. He had a deep knowledge and understanding of Buddha, Confucius and Jesus Christ, as well as Luther, Calvin, and Savonarola; of literary giants such as Dante, Schiller, Shakespeare and Goethe; and of analytical writers such as Renan and Gobineau, Chamberlain and Sorel.

    He had trained himself in philosophy by studying Aristotle and Plato. He could quote entire paragraphs of Schopenhauer from memory, and for a long time carried a pocket edition of Schopenhauer with him. Nietzsche taught him much about the willpower.

    His thirst for knowledge was unquenchable. He spent hundreds of hours studying the works of Tacitus and Mommsen, military strategists such as Clausewitz, and empire builders such as Bismarck. Nothing escaped him: world history or the history of civilizations, the study of the Bible and the Talmud, Thomistic philosophy and all the master-pieces of Homer, Sophocles, Horace, Ovid, Titus Livius and Cicero. He knew Julian the Apostate as if he had been his contemporary.
    ‘His knowledge also extended to mechanics. He knew how engines worked; he understood the ballistics of various weapons; and he astonished the best medical scientists with his knowledge of medicine and biology.

    The universality of Hitler’s knowledge may surprise or displease those unaware of it, but it is nonetheless a historical fact: Hitler was one of the most cultivated men of this century. Many times more so than Churchill, an intellectual mediocrity; or than Pierre Laval, with his mere cursory knowledge of history; or than Roosevelt or Eisenhower, who never got beyond detective novels.’

    “Shirer’s is an all too familiar tactic of journalists and ‘historians’ when dealing with Adolf Hitler: his was a mind so vastly superior to the political and intellectual pygmies who strode the world stage all about him, then as now, that their only recourse is to portray him as the exact opposite, and to repeat the same lie over and over until it becomes an Orwellian ‘truth’ on a par with ‘two plus two equal five’.

    “And yet, in a way, Shirer’s words – at least when shorn of the gratuitously insulting repertoire of adjectives – can be interpreted in today’s world in a very different way from that which he intended. A ‘burning passion for nationalism’; a ‘hatred of democracy, Marxism and Jews’; ‘Aryans as the master race’; and ‘a new kind of state based on race’. Many, perhaps most in what today is routinely termed the ‘Dissident Right’, will applaud these ideas. That people like us should find much that is sound in Shirer’s analysis would, without doubt, have appalled him. But is this not merely indicative of the way in which we have set ourselves apart from ‘normies’ – the world they inhabit and the things they believe in, so that we are now the inheritors of Hitler’s profoundly insightful and prescient vision?”

    OK – so I’ve ‘outed’ myself as an admirer of the ‘Third Way’ that was National Socialism. And I make no apologies for that, given the alternatives of ‘Globo-Capitalism’ and ‘Identity Politics’…

    • Thanks: Curmudgeon, Mefobills
  4. Bartolo says:

    The point about Sweden having fared worse than its Nordic neighbours is a good one. But:

    a) How do we know that the right term of comparison are the other Nordic countries? What if the factor that made the difference between Sweden and the others (and I say this for discussion´s sake, I don´t know if this makes any sense) was, say, the higher percentage of foreigners (who move in and out of Sweden, leaving it more exposed)? Maybe it´s a bit early to draw any conclusions. See, for example, Lithuania. Their first “wave” was tiny. The second is “allowing” it to catch up with other countries. Maybe the other Nordics will experience big problems in the coming months. I don´t know.

    b) Many countries imposed lockdowns and fared worse than Sweden. What to make of this? Spain, Italy, the UK… they all had lockdowns and had more victims per million inhabitants than Sweden. Portugal, that would be to Spain what Norway is to Sweden, imposed measures as stringent as those of Spain… but only had half as many victims.

    • Agree: Brás Cubas
    • Replies: @showmethereal
  5. anon[259] • Disclaimer says:

    This is a good primer on critical thinking. You can spend a lot of money on college and graduate school and never learn that.

    One of the best aspects of sites like this one with uncensored comments, that people with the requisite habits of mind boost the capacity of brainwashing victims. You quickly see some commenters are not educable: diminutive-dicked dindu obsessives, Jew-supremacist cultists, or the blameless feeble-minded. But here the discourse has really developed over time. That’s the threat to the US regime. That’s why Zuck hires Jew-state spies to shut you up if you know how to think for yourself.

    • Replies: @Anon
  6. gay troll says:

    Saint Larry doth protest too much. Trying to define a difference between knowledge and understanding? His attitude toward history is correct, but not credible, since he is prone to view history as a Satanic conspiracy, and therefore he must assume the Gospels have some historical accuracy, which they do not. Perhaps the Gospels offer Larry more “understanding” but less knowledge. He seems to be OK with that.

    Yet Larry has the wrong attitude towards science. Science doesn’t consist of “facts”, science is a continuous process that results in a continuous revision of our understanding of nature. History can and should be regarded as a science for this very reason. Nothing is set in stone, not the commandments of God, nor the laws of motion. Knowledge is always subject to revision. Science is the means.

    I remember Larry once writing that he would never assert a fact unless he had a citation for it in his file cabinet. But this was the extent of his proof; he was unwilling to actually open the file cabinet, he only invoked it to corroborate some harebrained claim. Here’s the deal Larry, in history as well as all forms of science, you have to show the work that leads to your conclusion, otherwise people will assume you’re just another huckster.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  7. gay troll says:

    Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business.

    Is that you, Art Vandelay?

  8. Romanoff’s general thesis is instructive: trying to reach functional understanding within the overarching culture of deception. But his final flourish on Sweden, in my opinion, fails to conform to his sensible observations.

    First, the deaths from COVID ought to be distinguished from deaths with COVID.

    Have the various Scandinavian countries defined COVID deaths in a rigorously similar manner? If not, the comparisons are flawed.

    Second, what are the total mortality rates in the countries in question? Perhaps there is a more recent statistic available: the one I first found gave total mortality from late 2019 to near mid 2020 (week 23).

    Deaths per million all causes for Denmark 4783; for Finland 5086; for Norway 3922; for Sweden 4943.


    Now perhaps these numbers will show dramatic change at year end tally. Or not.

    Third, there is the question of medical treatment and nutritional support protocols and habits in the various countries. If Sweden had different protocols then this might account for different infection rates and outcomes re COVID-19. For example, adequate levels of vitamin D, zinc, and selenium have been found to be of advantage in fighting the illness.

    While the four countries are commonly referred to as Scandinavian, are there significant cultural differences between the countries that might lead to different infection and outcome rates, apart from a more lax approach from Sweden?

    Another question relates to the previous year or two’s death rates among seniors in the various countries: It may not be the case that these have been very similar, leading to more vulnerable seniors in 2020 in some countries than others.

    There are other great mysteries re COVID death stats: So for example, in Canada by May 10th, the province of Quebec in Canada with a population of roughly 8 and a half million people, had just over 3000 deaths that were defined by some unknown alchemy of definition as COVID-19 deaths.

    At that time I checked and calculated the total number of deaths consigned to COVID-19, again by some unknown method of definition, in South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and Russia. I chose these four at random really, and to my great surprise, although these countries have a population of roughly 450 million people, they had accumulated a grand total of COVID-19 deaths of about 20 less than Quebec. Just over 3000.

    And as noted, many countries have had approaches much at odds with Sweden’s and have had a very great variety of seeming results.

    • Replies: @Alfred Barnes
  9. To quote a “ferd” in an iSteve topic comment:

    Pandemic analysis has exposed an interesting fault line between conservatives who are intelligent and innumerate, and those who can read data. This has been a huge theme in my life since March.

    Here we have freaking 4 to 1, 10 to 1 (all math you can do trivially in your head thanks to the rounding), and 8 to 1 (almost as easy in your head) per capita differences in death rates between Sweden, and Denmark, Norway, and Finland respectively. There’s absolutely no way variations at the edges can account for these massive differences, one or more things are very different between Sweden and these culturally, and presumably before immigration invasion demographically similar counties.

    Definitely try to see if there’s a massive difference in statistical reporting, some countries like to massage their numbers to make them look better, but absent that, or really really huge demographic differences people would be pointing to now, we need the right questions to be asked and solidly answered. Bartolo is asking the right sort of questions, and GeeBee is asking probably the the most important one, perhaps the major factor in around one half of NYC’s dreadful death toll (the other half is Cuomo’s murderous policy of forcing nursing homes to take in COVID-19 positive patients, and I’ve heard a rumor that Swedes simply didn’t try hard to save their’s, just gave them opiates and let them die in a stupor, but that needs some serious confirmation).

    Otherwise, without exception, here and elsewhere we see the exact MO claimed for William Shirer, the individual starts with a narrative, and nothing short of death, very much a possibility in a pandemic, will sway them from their path. Inconvenient facts like what the numbers say are discarded, easy to do by the innumerate, s*** is made up out of whole cloth or repeated, while any facts that support the narrative are emphasized to the point of distortion.

    See also those who believe they are very clever because they know one wrong thing that they endlessly repeat for what they think is a one shot kill decisive victory, my “favorite” here is the lie the virus has never been isolated and cultured, based on a CDC test protocol document originally drafted for a test that was developed, strangely enough, before there were any isolates outside of the PRC, which for months, or more likely for the whole year, has never shared with anyone else, Communism Kills. (You can make valid tests based on published genetic sequences, which one brave group in the PRC did first, losing their jobs in the process as their group was immediately shut down for “rectification”.)

    Anyone wonder why the West as a whole has had a pretty bad response to COVID-19, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, while those very failures are more grist for tyrants and totalitarians to use to achieve their aims, petty, or ambitious like The Great Reset?

  10. gay troll says:

    I glanced at the internet to try and determine if “Larry Romanoff” has a past, and the results were not encouraging. There is this Larry Romanoff, who is lionized by Ohio State as “one of the greatest Buckeyes ever”:

    Then there is the Larry Romanoff profiled in the WSJ after causing a stir with theories that COVID 19 came from the USA. The WSJ says “Lawrence Delvin Romanoff, who is in his late 70s, produces essays that generally praise China and criticize the US”:

    Is this the same man? It’s hard to tell since all white people look the same, but the answer seems to be no. The Buckeye Romanoff is younger and actually lives in America, unlike the sockpuppet Romanoff, who lives in China. So what do we really know about this author? Larry provides a biography at the end of this article, which the WSJ sheds light on:

    Mr. Romanoff claims he has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s prestigious Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior executive M.B.A. classes. But officials at both of Fudan’s executive M.B.A. programs said they are unfamiliar with Mr. Romanoff. These officials also said they don’t recognize Larry Long, a name used on a LinkedIn profile registered to one of Mr. Romanoff’s email addresses that also cites him being a “visiting professor” at Fudan since 2006, around the time his website became Shanghai-focused.

    Here’s another gem from the WSJ article:

    In 1998, a court in Canada said Mr. Romanoff pleaded guilty to a scheme that involved selling used stamps as new ones to raise money for a Mother Teresa charity. The former advertising-firm owner subsequently registered a business in Calgary’s Chinatown and an internet site to sell recordings of a group of 7-year-old singers called the Bear Children’s Choir of Hong Kong. The website proclaimed their songs “the finest Chinese children’s music produced in the world today.”

    It sounds like my impression of Larry Romanoff as a huckster is correct.

    • Replies: @Anon
  11. anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    This is why history is often called ‘his story’. The opinions of actors, athletes, news anchors are often reported as if they were somehow important even though those groups are generally airheads. But many people seem to take them seriously so it helps to have a celebrity publicize whatever cause is being pushed. Bill Gates doesn’t have a medical background yet his views on this virus and vaccination are constantly put in front of the public as though he were some sort of oracle. In the example the author gives of Sweden compared to nearby countries death rates, just putting up raw numbers doesn’t prove anything whatever. What’s behind the numbers? Previous commenters have taken this apart so no need to repeat it here. Besides that the article is good in questioning what do we really know and how do we come to know it. Or think we know it.

  12. Those are statistics and are not facts as far as the fatalities are concerned. Statistics are easy to manipulate, hence the Mark Twain saying lies, damned lies, and statistics. We do know that covid-19 response was a global conspiracy, and that Sweden rebelled against the lock downs. We know that other countries worked in lock step and had every reason to discredit Sweden. Why did you choose to compare Sweden to the countries that you did, rather than the England, Italy, and the United States? Geographic proximity to Sweden has nothing to do with it, yet, those are the countries that you chose to use. Those are not facts. You are looking at the trees and not the forest, You also failed to take into consideration the health risks of the lock down, physical, mental, spiritual, societal, and economic. Everyone is fully aware that this is a gas-lighting psy-op used for mass scale theft and control. If it is your goal to understand, please read Global Research’s many articles.

    Andrea Iravani

  13. Those are statistics and are not facts as far as the fatalities are concerned. Statistics are easy to manipulate, hence the Mark Twain saying lies, damned lies, and statistics. We do know that covid-19 response was a global conspiracy….

    I am truly impressed, someone who does not understand the difference between facts, albeit disputed, and statistics, which in this case are so trivial you can do all of them in your head.

    We know that other countries worked in lock step

    You have to be very, very ignorant, or so fixated on your theory to believe such a thing, when we’ve seen such different responses and outcomes, and both not always correlated. East Asia is not the Middle East or specifically Iran is not Italy is not Scandinavia minus Sweden is not the U.K. is not the US

    Where there are 50+ different responses since that’s done at the state, and often county and city levels. Where I live, no lockdowns, but restrictions, and greater or lessor degrees and periods of remote learning. OK first wave, didn’t really notice the second, third was very bad as in over our hospital capacity for 150 miles in all directions until a week ago. Is this truly the policy and experience of all of the US, and all the world which is in on this vast conspiracy? I had no idea there was a hotline in my not very large town’s mayor’s office to whomever is coordinating this conspiracy….

    • Replies: @Notsofast
  14. Notsofast says:

    i find the jump from the bombing of dresden to swedish covid to be a rather abrupt one. i had recently been musing over the the coincidence of the massive spike in swedens “second wave” with the arrival of astrazeneca’s problem plagued vaccine meeting primary efficacy. astrazeneca is a brittish/swedish company and how else could you get swedes to line up to be be guinea pigs other than scaring the shit out of them? just another amazing coincidence in a year of unpresented amazing coincidences.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  15. Notsofast says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    holy shit “that would be telling” is back! welcome back #2, you really are a great big steaming pile of #2. at least change your sock puppet, you’ve been jacking off so much the old one’s stiff.

  16. @Notsofast

    i had recently been musing over the the coincidence of the massive spike in swedens “second wave” with the arrival of astrazeneca’s problem plagued vaccine meeting primary efficacy. astrazeneca is a brittish/swedish company and how else could you get swedes to line up to be be guinea pigs other than scaring the shit out of them? just another amazing coincidence in a year of unpresented amazing coincidences.

    I can see why you don’t want someone like me around when you simply make up stuff out of whole cloth. AZ/Oxford, especially Oxford, is a clown show, especially in testing, but they’re not doing any testing in Sweden.

    Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, United States which they’re discussing with the FDA a restart, Russia, where it’s suspended, Japan, as well as Brazil as is well known (first death in a Western vaccine trial: a 29 year old doctor who got a placebo died of COVID-19), and India.

    Sweden might end up buying some, it’s cheap, but first AZ/Oxford has to either prove the accidentally discovered half dose followed by a full dose pattern provides serious protection, or their teaming up with the Sputnik V people has to bear fruit. The latter got around Oxford’s bad design of using the same chimp adenovirus vector for both doses by using to different human ones for the first and second.

    • Replies: @Notsofast
  17. @Robert Snefjella

    Yes, and how did the country fare as a whole? What are the GDP numbers, other qualitative measures?

  18. I think this article is quite useful — especially in the sense of stirring debate.
    It’s interesting that the author uses the old faithful science = (fairly dependable) knowledge & history (a quagmire of potential intellectual quackery) dichotomy.
    It’s a reliable one — b/c it does help highlight the differences between science & humanities (& social science).
    Then he brings up Covid. Now that is really interesting — b/c, prima facie covid should be fairly close to the science category…. shouldn’t it? But, my god, the black, white & rainbow of different opinions, & different facts on one subject!
    “covid” is now a synonym for contradiction, controversy, & conflict. Has anything, in its totality EVER been less understood?
    Remember Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes?
    If a Klink asked me about Covid, all I would say is — “I know nothink — I know noth-ink”

  19. Anon[359] • Disclaimer says:

    Learning to think critically is like learning to be tall, or intelligent. It is not a learned trait.

  20. Anon[359] • Disclaimer says:
    @gay troll

    I am glad to see this comment here, because it means someone posted it, and also, the site’s management let it show to all readers.
    It’s a healthy sign when a website comments sections show some that run against the site’s grain, if one can so speak, and indeed, I definitely stopped reading mainstream media websites when, after Trump’s election, they started to no longer pretend to be fair in the management of reader comments.

    This said, in my experience, pressure on someone expressing their opinions to “come out with their real identity” originate mostly from the urge to censor, and the wish those opinions not be expressed. So I tend not to see such pressuring favourably, and I see no issues with someone choosing to use a nom-de-plum (if that be the case here). I also don’t see why having run into some legal issues (if that be the case here) would prevent the opinions of someone from the ability to be expressed, and published, under the same standards anyone else’s opinions are.

    If someone writes content that tends to praise China and critique the USA, it’s useful to read them to learn things about the USA. One can read content by others who tend to praise the USA and critique China to learn things about China.
    Columnists are neither saints nor angels, and with being humans comes that like all humans they won’t be 100% truth-pursuing, consciously and unconsciously.

    What makes this site great, in my opinion, is that it is the site that most believes in freedom of expression, for its staff and its readers alike, of all sites I have known.
    And I believe the 1st amendment be a cornerstone of all that is in our civilization that we must be proud of — or all that was in it.
    Many others claim to allow the expression of all viewpoints, then when you submit a testing comment, they behave almost like the MSM they constantly deplore.

  21. @gay troll

    History can and should be regarded as a science

    History is properly aged propaganda, nothing more.

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  22. We’ll have to wait a few years and then look back on the overall death counts to see the real long term effects of the Covid hysteria.

    The deaths recorded today may be above the average or trend, but they may also just be a statistical blip of pulling deaths into the present that would have occurred anyway in a year or two. It’s like running a sale on an item and the sales go up in the quarter only to fall next quarter because people bought it early and now don’t need it as much.

    The counting of deaths attributable to Covid is meaningless today. In a few years, one can look at the longer term numbers to suggest what the true impact of Covid was. That however, will also include the suicides of despondent people that lost their businesses or workers that couldn’t find jobs, or the people that died of other ailments that didn’t get properly treated because the hysteria put them at the back of the line.

    In short, we’ll never be able to separate the deaths from Covid from the deaths from the hysteria surrounding Covid.

  23. Dare I commit heresy by observing that William Shirer, one of “Murrow’s boys,” worked as a reporter for a radio network, CBS, that was owned by a Jewish family, or does questioning his objectivity because of likely pressure from his employer automatically make me a racist antisemite neonazi?

    Charles Lindbergh got himself into seriously hot water in 1941 by pointing out that while Jews had every reason to despise Germany, the United States did not, and the unrelenting pressure from powerful American Jews to join the European conflict was clearly not in our best national interest.

    Meanwhile, Stephen Wise, FDR advisor and president of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress, declared at an anti-German rally in New York City in June 1938, “I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew… Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.”

  24. So, on what basis can Sweden be used as an ideal for anything? It cannot be. On this basis of comparison, Sweden is a disaster.

    Let’s re-visit your comparison in successive years: Chances are the COVID fatalityrates will be roughly comparable. The biggest difference will be in the tallies of deaths of despair.

  25. Notsofast says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    hey, give my regards to the rest of the 77th brigade asshole.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  26. @Bartolo

    a/b) the reason they compared to other Nordic countries is because they are the most similar… In the same way you would compare Central America or the Spanish speaking Caribbean or Northeast Asia.

  27. @RoatanBill

    That’s mainline, or mainstream — sometimes, even, lawful 😀 — history.
    There can be and there is also serious history.

    And there can be serious debates over it being a science or not — though it’s not easy for me to see their worth.

  28. @Notsofast

    hey, give my regards to the rest of the 77th brigade asshole.

    What part of “AZ/Oxford, especially Oxford, is a clown show, especially in testing” did you not understand? Or is the 77th Brigade tasked with trashing their own country’s leading vaccine effort? And why?

    • Replies: @Notsofast
  29. Sweden appears to have succumbed to pupeteers over the global economic depression caused by psychopaths guilty of financial, scientific, and medical fraud, which everyone knows started years prior to the scamdemic.

    Suddenly, the Swedish government has succumbed to paranoia on two fronts, and it is a highly suspicious coincidence in timing that they both suddenly demanded that people start wearing masks, and that they suddenly start preparing with Scandanavian countries, and NATO for an attack on Sweden by Russia!

    This is juat extremely bizarre!

    Andrea Iravani

  30. As one example, I was at one time fascinated with gemstones and pearls – for no good reason that I can recall, but I followed my pattern and read and bought everything I could find

    Eliot’s “objective correlative” came to mind and the “pearl of great price”. Things from very early childhood I remember which decades later seem to have meaning as if they were planted seeds with maybe somebody good in charge and “all shall be well, all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well”.

    Somebody once said “the truth will set you free” and in context truth is actually a person. This recalls how Maat, goddess of truth, was present at creation in Ancient Egyptian mythology. Maat was also a state and a divine gift – one that could not just be given but taken away if not cultivated. A common royal depiction is the King holding truth in his hand as a supreme divine offering.

    Understanding is knowing that human beings are not omniscient and that they are prone to a pride that inhibits acknowledging error. Then there is the Judas streak – take the money, have an easy life and go with the flow.

  31. onebornfree says: • Website

    L. Romanoff said:” What conclusions do we draw from this? Mainly that neither the writers nor the readers are interested in the truth, but are instead focused only on selling an ideological point of view on the uselessness of quarantines, undeterred by the fact that their premises are not only false but ridiculously so.”

    So……[help me out here]….you are claiming that government-imposed lockdowns of entire populations work, are humane, legal, and therefor “justified” and “necessary” Right?

    “Regards”, onebornfree

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    • Replies: @Larry Romanoff
  32. Notsofast says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    as you’ve told us before you don’t want us to know whos side you’re on. the 77th brigades job is to attack antivaxxers on the internet. you show up on unz just as the 77th brigades defence cultural specialist unit is activated to monitor and counter “online propaganda against vaccines” in order to create “behavioral change”. the 77th also monitors and counters “vaccine disinformation from hostile states including russia”. my favorite post of yours was your claim the evil vlad the impaler putin was going to poison people with the sputnik vaccine. although your first post suggesting we nuke china also is a strong candidate as well. in half a year you’ve posted over 106,000 words in 465 comments exclusively on the subject of vaccines. it appears to me your goal is to hijack threads in an informational blitzkrieg and lead them into the weeds. you want to paint yourself as an average unzer concerned about the health of your elderly friends, who just happens to have a self-educated encyclopedic knowledge of viruses and vaccines. you don’t pass the smell test, if it looks like a turd, talks like a turd and smells like a turd it’s most likely #2. how do you do fellow kids?

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  33. @onebornfree

    Your points are a bit too scattered to assemble a sensible reply. My “claim” was what it was – that few seemed interested in the truth of anything but were mostly trying to sell others on a point of view. I made no claims about lockdowns “work, are humane, legal, justified or necessary”.

    But you are proving my point – attempting to sell others on a point of view, but employing insults rather than facts.

    One “fact” is this: If I remain in my home alone, I cannot be infected with an external virus, nor can I possibly infect anyone else. I therefore will not be part of a chain of transmission. Adjectives like “legal” and “humane” are incendiary and irrelevant. Government actions are almost by definition legal, and there is no evidence of ‘inhumanity’ in any country that tried to prevent a disaster.

    Another “fact” that cannot be disputed is that masks, by definition, must be effective. If I cover my mouth and nose, I am reducing the chances of inhaling a pathogen and also of breathing it onto someone else. Even if the effectiveness is only to a 10% level, that is still better than nothing.

    Then you rail on about taxes being “theft”, all governments being “innately criminal”, central bank money being “counterfeit”, and much other nonsense, all apparently in support of a position which you never bothered to state.

    This was one of my points in the essay, of 95% of comments being unreasoned, unintelligent, and useless. The world has no need for further rants and misinformation. What it needs is truth.

  34. Syd Walker says: • Website

    I think this is a very fine article indeed.

    The issue of how those of us who really care to find out the truth set about it, both in general and specifically in our 21st century internet-enabled world, merits a lot more attention.

    Larry Romanoff’s essay is a very useful contribution to that discussion – and a perfect complement to his other recent article on the origins of the SARS-2-Cov virus. In that article Romanoff proposes the rather popular theory that the COVID-19 pandemic is some form of biowarfare. It’s a fascinating read with lots of references to check out. While I don’t believe Romanoff proves his case, it’s a best compilation of information suggestive of deliberate malevolence that I’ve seen so far.

    This “Search for Truth and Understanding” article certainly bolsters his credentials as someone who writings are worth taking seriously.

  35. @Larry Romanoff

    Another “fact” that cannot be disputed is that masks, by definition, must be effective. If I cover my mouth and nose, I am reducing the chances of inhaling a pathogen and also of breathing it onto someone else. Even if the effectiveness is only to a 10% level, that is still better than nothing.

    What quality of masks? Properly fitted and worn medical grade N95 masks, certainly. But surgical grade plus or minus?

    There’s a hypothesis that needs to be tested that large respiratory droplets that get stuck in the latter may get converted by further breathing into smaller particles that earn the aerosol name and are much more dangerous. And just now it’s occurred to me that might also be possible with improperly sized or worn N95 masks.

  36. @Notsofast

    Yes or no question: would a member of the U.K.’s 77th Brigade consistently be trashing the U.K.’s very own home grown vaccine and clinical trials effort?

    For extra credit, where would they find someone knowledgeable about the intricacies of US gun culture and gun control, seeing as how they’ve spent a solid century exterminating their own, their ruling trash particularly afraid of revolution after the Bolsheviks?

    • Replies: @Notsofast
  37. @Larry Romanoff

    Your quote, my emphasis:

    Your points are a bit too scattered to assemble a sensible reply

    Okay, so you are blaming someone else for your reply not being “sensible”.

    But one might expect you to set a good example, as you are the person wagging a verbal finger at those deplorable 95 percenters who comment in a manner “unreasoned, unintelligent, and useless”.
    One might expect from you a high standard; that what you contribute to the struggle against cursed misinformation would be clear, factual, truthful, and even yes sensible.

    You wrote:

    Another “fact” that cannot be disputed is that masks, by definition, must be effective. If I cover my mouth and nose, I am reducing the chances of inhaling a pathogen and also of breathing it onto someone else. Even if the effectiveness is only to a 10% level, that is still better than nothing.

    Following are some comments on the confusions and deficiencies in that paragraph. But again, since you have already pointed out that due to no fault of your own you would not be able to “assemble a sensible reply”, I hesitate to blame you entirely.


    Since the first sentence in the paragraph is incomplete, not giving information as to what the masks are effective in doing, the sentence is neither a fact nor is it immune from sensible dispute. Thus I dispute it.

    If I write “trucks must be effective … ” or “trees must be effective …” you might sensibly wait with bated breathe for me to complete the sentence.

    The next sentence attempts to fill in the blank: mask you imply are effective at “reducing the chances of inhaling a pathogen and also of breathing it onto someone else.”

    Note the word “effective”. Strange word that. In normal usage it implies “something is good at … whatever“. So for example, contrast “picking potato bugs off potato plants is effective in reducing leaf damage” to “spraying the potatoes with a poison deadly to potato bugs can be an effective way to harm soil microorganisms” to ” jumping towards the moon is an effective way to get closer to the moon for a split second”.

    Note that there are many types of masks, with many different attributes, advantages and disadvantages.

    Then you downgrade the generic term mask to a possible effectiveness of 10%, which seems like a random number, which you quite rightly note is a bigger number than zero. But 10% might be deemed not a fact, ambiguous, and for some onlookers rather ineffective.

    But there are other catches here: So for example, let us assume that there are a number of disadvantages to wearing a mask. Let us note that normal respiration is impeded, many people get headaches, and then there is the question of blood oxygen content, and does wearing a mask exacerbate skin problems, and does wearing a mask tend to promote pneumonia more than not wearing a mask? The point here is not to make grand assertions, but to introduce into the discussion some of the possible disadvantages of wearing masks. Can’t see you smile! Or grimace! And can’t quite hear what you’re saying! Oh my gawd! Is that you behind the mask!?

    Let us then proceed to wondering about studies re masks. And we have now the recent Danish study that seemed to not demonstrate much one way or the other. From a November headline:

    A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19.

    The CDC in Oct. weighed in:

    A Centers for Disease Control report released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them.

    And it is just as easy to find another slant on the subject: From the USA Today

    CDC report doesn’t show mask-wearers are more likely to contract COVID-19

    Or this from The Hill in October 2020:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield said Wednesday that wearing a mask is more guaranteed to protect someone from the coronavirus than taking a vaccine.

    Such fertile ground for vague assertion: “more guaranteed” and “more likely” and “effective” and “not effective”.

    Then we might wonder about various jurisdictions that have had various approaches to mask wearing: In the case of Europe, Finland, Sweden and Belarus would seem to be examples of relatively lax mask wearing, and Spain, the UK, and France are examples of high percentage mask wearing. And how does total mortality in 2020 in each of these countries compare?

    In the case of these European countries, masks do not seem to be “effective” in reducing overall mortality or number of cases.

    There are many other mysteries: For example, what is the actual number of people demonstrably dying from COVID or being demonstrably seriously harmed by COVID in those countries, compared to death and harm from the measures taken in response to the COVID phenomenon? Nobody knows.

  38. Notsofast says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    this is exactly what i’m talking about, gas lighting, taking the emphasis from the harm of the vaccine and diverting it to the incompetence of the medical personnel. you then completely change the topic altogether in an attempt to drag the thread into the weeds.

  39. Notsofast says:

    let me start by saying that your 22,000 word article on mk ultra was incredibly powerful reading, i got half way through and had to quit not from the length of the article but from the nausea that it produced in ingesting it. i forced myself to read the second half the next day. it should be required reading for all highschool students in order for them to graduate. now before you throw me into the 95% of off topic commenters catagory, let me add that your sudden change of topics from the bombing of dresden to swedens covid response seemed off topic to me. you seem to be buying into the official narrative hook, line and sinker. i would think that someone with the in depth knowledge of the evils that our government is capable of, might see some application of mk ultra in all of this.

  40. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Larry Romanoff

    “But you are proving my point – attempting to sell others on a point of view, but employing insults rather than facts.”

    So exactly when/where did I insult you.?

    “Then you rail on about taxes being “theft”, all governments being “innately criminal”, central bank money being “counterfeit”, and much other nonsense,”

    Well if you really believe that all governments are not innately criminal, please give an example,[just one!], and if you really believe that all central bank money is not counterfeit, then all I can say is that you are spectacularly naive, to say the least.

    “Regards” onebornfree

  41. I have rounded off all the numbers for ease of reading; the roundings are inconsequential to the result. You can see clearly from the statistics that while Sweden has twice the population of the other three Nordic Countries, it has between 3 times and 10 times the number of virus infections and between 8 times and 16 times the number of deaths.

    I was always perplexed as to why they allowed Sweden off the hook. Now I know why. It was to set Sweden up for this cautionary warning.

    Even if the number of deaths in Sweden is true, so what? Eight thousand deaths is 0.08% of the total population of ten million. How many people die in Sweden from the normal flu each year? How many died from the normal flu in 2020 as compared to those who died from Covid-19?

    I bet nobody died from the normal flu in 2020… wanna bet?

    Now, let’s look at Belarus for a more accurate assessment of the effectiveness of lockdowns. Like Sweden, Belarus has a population of about 10 million people. But unlike Sweden, it is not 100% ZOG. There were no lockdowns in Belarus.

    As of writing, this very minute, the number of reported deaths due to Coivd-19 in Belarus is only 1,461.* That’s about 500 more deaths than in Denmark which has a population of about 6 million. Why isn’t Belarus praised as the better and more truthful example?

    Again, even if the numbers are true, so what? The number of Covid-19 deaths is tiny, less than 0.1% in just about any country you care to cite.

    Do the natural deaths of elderly people and the infirm justify the lockdowns and liquidation of the middle-class in the Western World?

    Did it ever occur to you that this is the real agenda and purpose of the “pandemic?”

    * Source:

  42. WCH says:

    The Sweden example is perfect because it proves your point. The deaths numbers cannot be trusted. Proving someone died directly from covid is impossible. So you are wrong on that and that proves your main point.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Larry Romanoff Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2